nerdjon

It isn’t intentionally misleading, at best it is an over simplification of what is happening.

It is a fact that there is a government lead effort in various states to ban books from k-12 libraries. That part of this is not up for debate because it is happening. So they are in fact “banned”. As a society we generally accept that words have more complicated or nuanced meanings when connected to other words, as “banned” is in this case.

We also as a society generally accept that those other words may be implied or require looking at something for more than a minute to understand the context. If you are in a country where a book is actually banned, I would wager that you would likely just say “this book is banned” implying it is banned where you are instead of adding in “this book is banned here in X” since it would be unnecessary to say and would be generally understood.

If you don’t like the word than propose another word.

The problem is that there isn’t really a better term, and using “banned” gives the correct impression for most people to see the problem.

In many cases these books are not simply being removed at the school level but are being driven by the government and it is politically motivated.

Ignoring the problem won’t lead to them being banned in the sense that having them would be illegal, but it could make it more difficult to get. It would not be hard to imagine states like Florida going further and attacking public libraries or possibly even making it so you have to show an ID to buy these books.

Some public libraries are already being attacked.

“Banned” may not be technically correct but it also properly communicates the seriousness of this and the goals of the people pushing this.

I am not fully convinced that a foldable is really going to be something that most will want, but I think it could find its niche. Given that from another article it seems that in the simulator it is using the iPad view it could be useful for some people.

Though, I have yet to find myself in a situation that I wanted to use an iPad and I was not already in a position to be carrying one. I use mine for work and I am already carrying a laptop, throwing in an iPad is a very small addition to my bag.

Any time I have just been out, was never a situation I felt like I needed something like an iPad. Throw in that this looks like it will be the size of a Mini vs the 13" pro that I use now, it puts it in an awkward position. And I could justify the rumored $2k cost to replace 2 devices that cost more than that combined.

It will be interesting to see how it does in practice, but also what it does to the separation of iOS and iPadOS.

A dishwasher is the only reason you can think of a humanoid robot? How about a robot to load and unload the dishwasher.

The fact is we live in a world built for humans. I have a robot vacuum and for it to be effective I had to setup my home in a certain way, and even then it is not fully effective.

People pay for cleaners to come into their home all the time, it shouldn't be hard to think why a humanoid robot would (theoretically, if it worked well) be far better than a purpose built machine in the home. But also in many cases working with those machines.

This is basically advocating for open source games which is a completely different story than what stop killing games is trying to do.

There are tons of closed source games that have zero online component to them.

I don't see how you can actually argue that this is a good thing, especially when they say:

> The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others.

That... basically kills the entire gaming industry.

Am I missing something serious here or is this really trying to advocate for that.

I unfortunately have met a few. I have one friend that legit scares me... we saw how people reacted to o4 being discontinued.

Though I do agree that most people probably don't want as much AI as is being shoved on us right now, there is a subset that do want at least some of it.

More my point, yeah I think there is an issue of the actual demand being extremely over estimated due to shady practices (like of course Gemini gets a lot of use when every single google search calls it whether you want it or not). But we also should not be so quick to disregard there being real demand just to hope for the outcome we want.

I am thankful that both my partner and myself are in a pretty good spot when it comes to our gaming PC's. I had hoped to double my RAM at some point but I am still at a comfortable spot.

I am annoyed that the new handhelds are all crazy so sticking with my Legion Go for now.

The one I am annoyed with is storage. I desperately need to get a couple new drives for my NAS (one to replace one that its bad sectors are growing and one to add more storage) and I am not looking forward to spending $600-$700 each for 20TB drives.

We can be cynics of AI without ignoring reality, if no one wanted this no one would be chatting with Claude or ChatGPT directly, but people obviously are.

The fact is there are people that do in fact want this, and it isn't just CEO's hoping to cut jobs.

Some competition for Apple in this space and competition for Intel and AMD is great.

But I really do question how well Windows on Arm is really going to work out long term.

For Apple it worked because they were able to force the issue. If you wanted a new Mac it was going to be Arm and we all knew eventually (this year or is it next year?) Intel support would drop. Over time we have seen M series exclusive features.

Developers were forced to update or abandon Mac which gave users a great experience (with some early growing pains).

This is something that Windows will never be able too do. They will always be stuck maintaining an emulator and a likely large subset of apps only supporting one over the other. (also does this work the other way around with an Arm only app working on x86?)

This seems like a repeat of when it was not uncommon for games to only support Intel or AMD or NVIDIA or AMD. But worse since they are not both x86. Sure at least we have emulation but just like with Rosetta2 it shouldn't ever be the long term solution.

As someone who is not in the market for a Ferrari, I feel like I am crazy for actually kinda liking the look of it? (The blue is bad, they should have used the red one for all of the marketing)

I mean, I feel like it should be a departure from the Ferrari look since it really isn't one that fits the expectation of what a Ferrari is. It feels like this is more an expansion of the Ferrari brand into a new segment while also borrowing from the rest of the brand?

They even said "entirely new Ferrari".

I feel like if it did try to look like a normal Ferrari but then it didn't feel, sound, etc like one due to being Electric people would also complain.

The number of people with cars that might be willing to do some side work for some extra money?

It isn't like other jobs that have resumes and (possibly) long interview processes.

From what I can find we are talking a few days without talking to anyone and you are driving. Throw in Uber and Lyft doing an advertising campaign with incentives to start driving, I don't see any reason they could not have a potential large amount of drivers fairly quickly.

Maybe it won't be at ideal hours, maybe it will still be hit or miss, but there are a lot of drivers out there. Just due to the very nature of this being gig work.

All they really need to just ignore the union's demands is to be able to sign up enough drivers to out last the members not making money. Getting used to driving the streets and everything is up to the drivers, not uber or lyft. I am just reluctant to think it will actually work and the drivers won't cave. Trying to pass laws would be a more concrete fix.

No doubt good for them, but I am curious how this is realistically going to work.

The barrier of entry to get new non-union drivers for Lyft and Uber is very low. If a strike does happen I can't imagine it would be hard for them to fairly quickly get new drivers, especially with the possibility of higher fairs due to high demand while it is sorted out. I have to imagine they would be able to get drivers far faster than most other situations with strikes.

I wonder if Uber and Lyft would even try to partner with gocurb or another app to funnel riders directly to taxies.

Not saying a union is a bad thing, I just wonder in this particular case how well it is realistically going to work out. Guess we will see.

Except that your example is a simple conversation vs explaining the outcome of a study/program. That immediately requires more information to actually convey what did and did not happen.

For example, I could read the actual details on this and possibly determine that they replace school with some other (cheaper) program that just keeps the girls busy.

Or I could determine that all we really need to do is launch an outreach marketing program encouraging that girls stay in school and ignore all of the other support that was given.

One of those is supported by the headline and one is supported by the lack of information about what actually helped.

If by your example there was a study on how we made a previously unlivable area, suitable for humans in their homes but all it said was "well the temperature is X" than you would have questions on how exactly that was achieved.

Same with living in space, if NASA told us that the way astronauts are living on the space station with "well there is oxygen" we wouldn't accept that because there is obviously more going on.

Wanting to actually know what the full picture is allows us to reproduce it.

I get that its not like they were sent to a boarding school or something.

But it does mention accelerated catch up programs just for them, assisting financially, and vocational training.

Which is clearly more than just "stayed in school". Meaning it is something that can't just be replicated by encouraging being in school but actively needing a program like this. Which is not a bad thing obviously, but it is important that the right lesson is taken out of this.

Reading this, I can't help but feel like there is a weird correlation here going on.

It seems less specifically about the school and more about the support system and the safe place that this program gave to the girls.

It sounds like this was a program specifically built to target the reasons they were not staying in school in the first place. Which obviously is a good thing but just simply stating "stayed in school" feels like an oversimplification of what was done here.

That is an important distinction since the question to me remains if the numbers would continue without the program specifically in place.

Am I misunderstanding something here?

To be frank, it sounds like you are also spreading misinformation. In a follow-up you even said that you have not received yours to test and that you are only assuming based on the previous steam controller.

But your comment here is very definitive and is a major problem at how quick we are to defend Valve when we don't actually know.

I only tried one game, but I just tried plugging my PS5 controller into my PC and it worked without needing to install anything in Mass Effect Legendary Edition, and Steam is not running so it isn't Steam Input handling it.

My PC may have installed something on its own, but I did not.

However I don't have an issue if there is a driver, the requirement of Steam running and apparently launching the game through steam is the issue here.

Edit:

I just realized I completely missed the not in your message:

> I can confirm that you do not need a Sony/8BitDo user account or any of their software running in the background for the controller to work.

so I guess my reply was not necessary, I need more coffee...

I don't buy that argument completely, nothing would be stoping them from just not bundling the drivers with Steam and also not requiring that I launch games through steam (if that is true).

While we could argue about the state of Windows, Steam also did not have to engineer it this way and the requirement of launching through Steam feels deliberate.

From what I can find, as others have mentioned, the 8BitDo controllers don't require Steam to be running to work. I presume the PS5 controller likely also does not (I will test this later)

> It only works with Steam, it can't work on a desktop OS without it

I was very curious about this, No video I saw even said anything about the Steam Software being needed, and is extremely disappointing, on my computer I make a point that I only have steam running if I am playing a steam game. If I am not it is not running and it does not auto start.

Now if it works with steam closed, I am slightly more ok with it but I would love a driver that is not coupled with Steam.

Though I do think it aligns with Valve’s initiatives lately. I don’t think I would go so far as to say walled garden but SteamOS is clearly geared towards using the Steam Store for everything (sure it has desktop mode, but the focus is clear) and their half assed Windows support (despite promises) on the Steam Deck.

Don’t get me wrong, Valve has done a lot of good but I do worry at how quick we are to defend them. I mean I even see people defending their rumored use of AI saying things like “well if there is any company I would trust it would be Valve”. Yeah that won’t backfire.

Edit:

Wait, it won’t even work with a game if it isn’t launched through steam? Are the other comments correct? If that is true, Yeah that is a big nope for me and of course more are not talking about it.

I refuse to let steam or any software run that is not related to my current task.

Why do we criticize Razer for shady practices with their hardware and software but it is fine that Valve did this?

It depends on what your use case is, I have both homebridge and homeassistant setup for different devices. But I also use HomeKit as the main hub of my home automation not home assistant.

For me both services are primarily for things that don't natively support HomeKit (my vacuum, logitech harmony, the receiver for my sound system, and a couple other things).

I also use home assistant to expose a couple of fake accessories for state tracking for some automation, and I do a little bit of more advanced automation in home assistant.

I use both though since some plugins in the home assistant side are way to complex (and causes issues due to that complexity) for what I need to just expose controls to homekit, or don't work as well as the homebridge version.

I am on the fence about using an LLM to respond to situations like this, particularly if it is a screenshot and it is obvious what they are doing.

It is snarky and cringe, but also goes to show how poorly the decision making is by the author that even an LLM is pointing out how badly you are handling this.

Especially when this is clearly a vibe coded project.

I really hate that Teams has basically taken over. It has so many poor design decisions that I regularly feel like I am fighting it.

My single biggest pet peeve, how it handles chats from meetings when you are not in the meeting. I have lost so many chats (or never got responses) because they were hidden in meeting chats that for some reason don't appear in your normal chat list.

Sure Slack had its own issues, but I don't remember ever feeling like I was actively fighting it and loosing.

This seems less about why it won't be supporting Intel and more about why Rosetta 2 will be going away, which seems mostly related to cleaning up code that is no longer necessary once Intel is not supported.

I strongly disagree.

I often have apps on my Mac or iPhone that ask for permission to see my camera, microphone, contacts, etc etc that I don't want it to see. But I do want other apps to be able to access those things.

Being able to stop those apps from accessing before they do instead of trying to fix it after is incredibly valuable.

Sure some users just accept everything, but that is not an argument against them existing in the first place.

Can I get this on a sticker to pass out anyone tries to shove copilot down my throat at work?

Maybe a shirt, could sell it on the Microsoft store even. Now that would be entertainment.

> so this pointless internet interaction is over.

I do find it quite fascinating that you have written this phrase 5 times in this thread instead of actually being able to engage in a conversation you disagree with. Frankly it's not cute.

Sure it is pointless but you also chose to start engaging in the conversation since you were confident in what you wanted to say. Just as I am.

On multiple occasions you are purposefully ignoring what people are saying and attempting to just talk about something else. I have acknowledged your bluetooth comment but you refuse to acknowledge topics api or any other instance that Google has also used their power to try to do exactly what you claim Apple is doing.

Google is not your friend, neither is Apple. And you may not care what Mozilla does but W3C does so they matter and they don't have the incentives Apple does and yet they also chose not to implement many of the same features, which you also won't acknowledge.

You continue to dwell on Bluetooth while ignoring that there are reasons to not just blindly follow Google which is what pages like this are advocating for. I honestly don't care about Bluetooth and I don't have any stakes on whether or not it is supported, and I also don't know enough about it to actually talk about security on it. I will leave that to people that actually know what they are talking about instead.

I would love if you can actually respond to Topics API and other initiatves that google has attempted that only furthers their agenda, just like you are saying Apple is doing. The fact is both companies are incentivized to do exactly that, and as I have already said both companies do this, and yet you seem to want to give Google a free pass and ignore when they have been problematic.

Regarding Firefox, them not implementing something is a very important piece of the puzzle and you cannot choose to ignore them just to try to strengthen your own argument. This is my fundamental issue with this page since they do not by default show Firefox because it completely breaks the "Apple Bad" narrative they are trying to push.

The fact is, Firefox on both mobile and desktop has not implemented many of the same API's that Safari has not and in some cases has implemented less. The Why there is extremely important because it directly impacts the conversation. Mozilla does not have any of the incentives that either Google has for pushing these features or that Apple has for not implementing them and yet they have chosen not to implement them.

> How is Web Bluetooth an evil agenda of Google??

Never said it was, notice how in the thing you quoted I said "Topics API"? That is extremely evil and was only introduced to benefit a single company, Google.

I never made a claim that every single thing on this list that safari does not support is a negative.

> IE was the first to implement XMLHTTPRequest. It changed the web fundamentally, and was the basis for "web 2.0".

Fantastic, that is an example of things working as they are supposed to work.

However IE also introduced things that were not made standard just as equally we celebrated that those things failed.

> If we didn't have browser manufacturers pushing the limits, we'd be stuck with "web 1.0" and browsers that did nothing interesting outside of loading animated gifs of dancing babyies.

Obviously that is true or the companies would not be involved in W3C. But that does not mean that every idea they introduce is necessary in a browser and deserves to be a standard feature. Google alone cannot and should dictate a standard, even though apparently we are fine with them attempting to do just that.

If everyone is in agreement instead of it benefiting a single company.

> The only one that benefits from not allowing it to become a standard is Apple

I would like to point out, once again. That this feature is also not available on Firefox for Android or Desktop. Your argument does not support why Mozilla has not implemented this feature. Which again, makes the "Apple bad" spin on this not as cut and dry.

Google is also involved in W3C and do I really need to bring up the topics API as Google attempting to use their position to push their agenda as well?

We really need to stop putting google on a pedestal as if they are truelly on the side of an open web, like every company they are looking out for their own interests. Which is fine, they are allowed to do this.

That doesn't change that many of these are in fact not a standard according to W3C and should not be implemented in any browser until it is. A discussion about why it may not be standard is worth it, but that is also a very important distinction that is not made on this page. Right now it is framing it as google supports a standard that the other's (including Firefox) do not.

Just because Google does something it doesn't mean the rest of the industry should follow. If we did that in IE days we would still have ActiveX

True, but putting aside that limitation on iOS for a moment.

The very important part about this is whether or not these features are actually considered a web standard or is it Google pushing their own agenda.

Which is where whether or not any non chromium browser supports any of these on any platform. Which many of these features they don't.

That completely changes the conversation here, from Apple purposefully ignoring standards to Google pushing things that are not standards yet. Which I will admit that the reality is a bit of both here, but it should not be considered a negative when a browser does not support a feature that is non standard... we heavily criticized IE for exactly this and yet we celebrate Chrome for it?